DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 5 December 2025, has been entered and carefully considered.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8-15 and 18-20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
The outstanding rejection of Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Claims 9, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendment to at least Claims 1, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18 and 20.
Response to Arguments
While referring to agreement reached during the interview held 10 November 2025, Applicant has not provided further specific arguments with regards to the previous rejection of Claims 9, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). However, as is presented below, Claims 1-20 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as well as 35 U.S.C. 112(a), in light of Applicant’s amendment.
While referring to agreement reached during the interview held 10 November 2025, Applicant has not provided further specific arguments with regards to the rejection of Claims 1-8, 10-13 and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and Claims 9, 14 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103. As such, these remarks amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the independent claims (1, 12 and 18) recite the language (emphasis added by the Office) “the first communication channel representing a session initiated protocol (SIP) trunk.” However, this language is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. As a first note, the word “representing” (or any variation) is not found in Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. Therefore, the feature that the first communication channel “represents” a SIP trunk is not supported. Paragraph 0065 of the specification recites the following:
“Accordingly, routing protocol 624 may be defined by an administrator of telecommunications platform 602 such that an individual may be reached via one or more different communication channels or destinations. For example, an individual may have access to one or more IP phones 606 that may be connected to telecommunications platform 602 via one or more SIP trunks 608.”
As seen from the above excerpt, while a communication channel may reasonably comprise a SIP trunk, the claim language “the first communication channel representing a session initiated protocol (SIP) trunk” is not described in the specification and is therefore new matter. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims.
Further regarding Claims 9, 14 and 20, the claim language “transmit a response representing an action to the predetermined routing protocol” is similarly not supported by Applicant’s specification and is therefore new matter. Paragraph 0063 of Applicant’s specification recites the following (emphasis added):
“Determining a failure of SIP trunk A may include receiving an indication from the destination IP address (e.g., customer SIP equipment 506, such as a SBC or PBX) associated with SIP trunk A that it is unable to receive the incoming call request. This may be an example of a SIP error code. Determining the failure may also include not receiving a response from the destination IP address for a specified period of time (e.g., a “timeout”). Upon determining that SIP trunk A has failed, routing protocol 524 may direct the request to SIP trunk B. Upon determining that SIP trunk B has also failed, routing protocol 524 may direct the request to SIP trunk C. Upon determining that SIP trunk C has failed, routing protocol 524 may direct the request to PSTN connection 526.”
As best understood in light the excerpt above, a SIP error code is generated indicative of a customer on SIP trunk A being unable to receive the incoming call request. However, there is no disclosure that this error code represents an action to be taken by the predetermined routing protocol. Rather, the error code represents a result of an attempt to receive the call request. As such, this new language is not supported by Applicant’s disclosure, as originally filed, and constitutes new matter.
Further regarding Claim 10, the claim language “the second communication channel represents one of the URLs” is similarly not supported by Applicant’s specification and is therefore new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Specifically, the independent claims (1, 12 and 18) recite the language (emphasis added by the Office) “the first communication channel representing a session initiated protocol (SIP) trunk.” As established in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, this language is not found in Applicant’s disclosure as originally filed. However, given the plain meaning of the term “represent” (e.g., “to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like”), it is not clear what is meant by the communication channel representing a SIP trunk. While the communication channel reasonably can be interpreted to comprise a SIP trunk, the scope of the claim language requiring that the communication channel represent a SIP trunk is unclear. Therefore, the claims are found to be indefinite. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 are rejected by virtue of dependency on the independent claims. Further regarding Claim 10, the claim language “the second communication channel represents one of the URLs” is similarly unclear as to how a communication channel can “represent” a URL in light of the lack of disclosure in Applicant’s specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-8, 11-13 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2016/0119179), hereinafter Palmer, in view of Fritz (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2017/0272479).
Regarding Claim 18, Palmer discloses a system comprising:
a data storage device storing processor-readable instructions (any of Figures 1-4, VoIP switch 115, which the Office submits inherently comprises a data storage device storing instructions (per 0095 which discloses hardware/firmware/software configuration for the disclosed processes)); and
one or more processors operatively connected to the data storage device and configured to execute the instructions to perform operations (any of Figures 1-4, VoIP switch 115, which the Office submits inherently comprises one or more processors (per 0095 which discloses hardware/firmware/software configuration for the disclosed processes)) including:
receiving a request to establish a telecommunication link with a destination phone number (paragraph 0047 – the VoIP switch receives a call request for a first call connection between a calling party and a called party at a called telephone number).
However, Palmer does not disclose searching, using a predetermined routing protocol, for a first communication channel assigned criteria that match the request to establish the telecommunication link with the destination phone number, the first communication channel representing a session initiated protocol (SIP) trunk; transmitting the received request to establish the telecommunication link to the destination phone number via the first communication channel representing the SIP trunk; determining that the request to establish the telecommunication link via the first communication channel representing the SIP trunk failed; and transmitting, via a second communication channel, the received request to establish the telecommunication link to a separate destination based on the predetermined routing protocol. In an analogous art, Fritz discloses this. Specifically, Fritz discloses, at Figure 6B and paragraphs 0097-0103, a process where a determination is made during a SIP negotiation that the codecs do not match leading to the request being rejected (i.e., failed) at step 612. Subsequently, a second controller then takes over control to establish a second media path (at steps 618-620). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palmer and Fritz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to decentralize processing for SIP signaling (see paragraph 0015 of Fritz).
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising the same operations as performed by the system of Claim 18. Therefore, Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 18.
Claim 12 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium performing the same operations as the system of Claim 18. Therefore, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as described above for Claim 18, noting that Palmer’s disclosed VoIP switch (any of Figures 1-4, element 115) inherently comprises a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Regarding Claim 2, Palmer discloses receiving an indication from the destination that the request has been denied (paragraph 0049 – the VoIP switch receives notification of failed attempts to reach the IP gateway).
Regarding Claim 3, Palmer discloses a timeout for response from the destination (paragraph 0049 – a timeout is determined based on a break in the communications for at least a preset period).
Regarding Claim 4, Palmer discloses the destination phone number is associated with one or more of an internet protocol (IP) phone or a voice over IP (VoIP) phone (Figure 1, element 110 and paragraph 0048 – the call is destined for a phone connected via IP PBX).
Regarding Claim 5, Palmer discloses the second communication channel includes a public switched telephone network (PSTN) line (paragraph 0050 – the redirect telephone number is a PSTN number).
Regarding Claims 6, 13, and 19, Palmer discloses the second communication channel includes an internet network connection (paragraph 0050 – the VoIP switch sends the modified call request to the voice gateway, which converts the VoIP-based call request (via internet network connection between elements 115 and 140 in Figure 1) into a TDM-based call request), or wherein the separate destination is a web real-time communication application (Note: this is claimed in the alternative in Claim 6 and is not claimed in Claims 13 and 19).
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Palmer discloses the separate destination includes a customer application (paragraphs 0050-0052 – the call redirection is sent from the Class 5 PSTN switch to a local exchange which routes the call to an IP gateway for connection with the customer).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Palmer and Fritz discloses the predetermined routing protocol represents a plurality of communication channels, and wherein each of the plurality of communication channels is assigned respective criteria (refer to paragraphs 0097-0103 of Fritz, where multiple controllers handle SIP negotiation and call setup, when a first controller does not support the requested codec and the second controller works with a media proxy to set up two media paths). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Palmer and Fritz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to decentralize processing for SIP signaling (see paragraph 0015 of Fritz).
Regarding Claims 11 and 15, the combination of Palmer and Fritz discloses determining that the received request to establish the telecommunication link to a separate destination via the second communication channel failed; and transmitting, via a third communication channel trunk, the received request to establish the telecommunication link to a second separate destination based on a predetermined routing protocol (refer to paragraphs 0097-0103 of Fritz, where multiple controllers handle SIP negotiation and call setup, when a first controller does not support the requested coded and the second controller works with a media proxy to set up two media paths; further, as shown in Figures 1-4 and described in paragraph 0069 – SIP trunks can provide connectivity to one or more external networks; therefore, it would be obvious to find a suitable channel for the call in the event that the second carrier was unsuccessful)). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Palmer and Fritz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to decentralize processing for SIP signaling (see paragraph 0015 of Fritz).
Regarding Claim 17, Palmer discloses the separate destination is a web real-time communication application (paragraphs 0050-0052 – the call redirection is sent from the Class 5 PSTN switch to a local exchange which routes the call to an IP gateway for connection with the customer).
Claims 9, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer in view of Fritz, as applied to Claims 1, 12 and 18 above, and further in view of Boerjesson et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2014/0274086), hereinafter Boerjesson. The combination of Palmer and Fritz discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 12, and 18, as described above. However, the aforementioned references do not disclose creating the predetermined routing protocol, wherein the separate destination is a uniform resource locator (URL) pointing to a customer exposed webhook, and wherein the customer exposed webhook is configured to transmit a response representing an action to the predetermined routing protocol, thereby permitting dynamic routing following creation of the predetermined routing protocol. In an analogous art, Boerjesson discloses this. Specifically, Boerjesson discloses mapping of the destination number to a routing configuration identifier (e.g., a SIP address or an application URI) (paragraph 0030), where the system can enable a SIP-URI to be associated with a phone number as a main mechanism for communication; however, if the communication does fail, a failure callback can specify an application resource or another SIP-URI. In the case of a SIP-URI, the call can failover to the secondary SIP domain for trunking (paragraph 0032). As part of SIP trunk origination scenarios shown in Figure 2 and described at paragraph 0041, the system can register a callback resource to a signaling event of the session, functions to associate, instantiate, or create a webhook, reactive resource, or event handler that is notified as a result of session messages, signaling patterns, and optionally media events, where the registration of a callback resource preferably includes receiving a specified callback URI to associate with communication events. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palmer/Fritz and Boerjesson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide fallback for SIP trunk establishment (refer to paragraph 0032 of Boerjesson).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palmer in view of Fritz, as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Boerjesson and Hassan et al (United States Pre-Grant Publication 2019/0089750), hereinafter Hassan. The combination of Palmer and Fritz discloses the limitations of Claims 1, 12, and 18, as described above. Fritz further discloses wherein each of the plurality of communication channels is assigned respective criteria (refer to paragraphs 0097-0103 of Fritz, where multiple controllers handle SIP negotiation and call setup, when a first controller does not support the requested codec and the second controller works with a media proxy to set up two media paths). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine Palmer and Fritz. One would have been motivated to do so in order to decentralize processing for SIP signaling (see paragraph 0015 of Fritz).
However, the aforementioned references do not disclose wherein the predetermined routing protocol represents a plurality of communication channels including at least uniform resource locators (URLs) and the SIP trunk, wherein the second communication channel represents one of the URLs. In an analogous art, Boerjesson discloses this. Specifically, Boerjesson discloses mapping of the destination number to a routing configuration identifier (e.g., a SIP address or an application URI) (paragraph 0030), where the system can enable a SIP-URI to be associated with a phone number as a main mechanism for communication; however, if the communication does fail, a failure callback can specify an application resource or another SIP-URI. In the case of a SIP-URI, the call can failover to the secondary SIP domain for trunking (paragraph 0032). As part of SIP trunk origination scenarios shown in Figure 2 and described at paragraph 0041, the system can register a callback resource to a signaling event of the session, functions to associate, instantiate, or create a webhook, reactive resource, or event handler that is notified as a result of session messages, signaling patterns, and optionally media events, where the registration of a callback resource preferably includes receiving a specified callback URI to associate with communication events. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Palmer/Fritz and Boerjesson. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide fallback for SIP trunk establishment (refer to paragraph 0032 of Boerjesson).
However, the aforementioned references do not disclose searching, using the predetermined routing protocol, for the second communication channel of the plurality of communication channels, wherein the second communication channel is assigned criteria that match the request to establish the telecommunication link with the destination phone number. In an analogous art, Hassan discloses this. Specifically, Hassan discloses a call request generating a SIP INVITE comprising a phone number (paragraphs 0039-0040), where the SIP INVITE request comprises a service parameter and the service parameter is compared to trunk capabilities indicated in trunk profiles to determine whether a trunk in each of the trunk profiles matches the service parameter (paragraph 0118).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nehme Antoun et al (United States Patent 9654440) discloses a SIP peering environment is created between the two domains by way of an IP tunnel. The IP tunnel of communication system is established by a plurality of SIP trunk links or pools of links between operators of domains A and B. Typically, the links that form the IP tunnel are based on operator-defined routing logic, such as least cost routing (column 5, lines 43-58).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW W. CHRISS whose telephone number is (571)272-1774. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8am-4pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDREW W CHRISS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472